Proponents of regulating the Internet under a network neutrality regime are regrouping for another major push for federal action, with all of the Democratic presidential contenders lining up on their side. They have the advantage of an excellent marketing message—they want to save the Internet. But just under the surface of that feel-good slogan is an aggressively pro-regulatory agenda that could deter needed infrastructure investment and ultimately end in government management and ownership of the Internet. And that spells disaster not just for economic growth and innovation on the Internet, but also potentially for freedom of expression.

On November 19, 2002 a number of Internet content companies wrote a letter to the Federal Communication Commission warning that telephone and cable companies would block users from accessing their sites, destroying the Internet, without a regime of mandated network neutrality, meaning that all the data passing through a company’s network has to be treated the same way. In the nearly five years since there have been no noteworthy instances of such blocking, but the heated rhetoric about the end of the Internet continues to intensify.

Ironically, the calls for government regulation to save the Internet appear to be deterring infrastructure investments that the Internet needs to continue functioning well. That’s because network neutrality requirements, depending on how strictly the concept is implemented, could prevent infrastructure companies from having any control over the data traveling across their networks. That means allowing teenagers using massive amounts of peer-to-peer bandwidth for trading stolen video games crowding out customers who need high-quality bandwidth for video conferencing, telemedicine, or other next-generation services.

Some infrastructure companies would like to offer premium tiers with quality of service guarantees on their networks, so they can have a multiplicity of revenue sources to justify their infrastructure investments. The possibility of strict network neutrality requirements makes some of those investments, sorely needed as Internet traffic continues to skyrocket, less viable.

Robert Kahn and David Farber, the technologists known respectively as the father and grandfather of the Internet, have both been highly critical of network neutrality mandates. Kahn has pointed out that to incentivize innovation network operators must be allowed to develop new technologies within their own networks first, something that network neutrality mandates could prevent. Farber has urged Congress not to enact network neutrality mandates that would prevent significant improvements to the Internet.

Supporters of network neutrality legislation are more focused on competition at the content and application layers, which is an important consideration. But given the lack of any actual incidents of anti-competitive behavior at those layers, we should not lose sight of the importance of protecting and encouraging investment in the physical layer, the actual billion dollar networks that must continue to be built and upgraded. Some network neutrality proponents openly admit that the rules would lead to underinvestment of infrastructure, and call for government subsidization or outright ownership. If the mandates are onerous enough, that would be their inevitable implication.

A government-run, centrally-planned network would shut down the innovation engine that the Internet has become. It would be a step backward 20 years, ignoring the verdict of the 20th century that central planning doesn’t work. In the absence of any demonstrated mischief by network operators, it would be a serious policy error to embark on a regulatory course that could lead to such an outcome.

Phil Kerpen is policy director for Americans for Prosperity.

*This essay is a part of the TechRepublican Policy Series. Please click here to read the conservative argument FOR Net Neutrality